Boeing Accused Of Covert, Coordinated Op-Ed Smear Campaign Against Space X

from the disinformation-nation dept

For years we’ve noted how the American press has an absolutely horrible tendency to run guest Op-Eds without disclosing the author’s financial conflicts of interest(s). Jesse Jackson, for example, can sometimes be found comparing efforts to bring competition to the cable box to racism in the 60s, without disclosing the cable industry’s underlying influence. Similarly, former Representative and fair use champion Rick Boucher can often be found praising CISPA, denying a lack of competition in broadband or attacking net neutrality in Op-Ed pages nationwide on behalf of AT&T with zero disclosure of his real financial motivations.

The act of republishing these missives without clearly disclosing financial conflicts of interests isn’t just unethical, it pollutes the national discourse, undermines already shaky trust in media, and contributes to a sound wall of disinformation as giant companies try to sell their latest megamerger, pass anti-consumer regulations and legislation, undermine a competitor, or justify terrible behavior.

One more recent example of this phenomenon comes courtesy of Boeing, which is being accused of running a covert smear campaign against Space X via media outlets that fail to adequately disclose ulterior financial motives of Op-Ed authors.

Back in August, just around the time that Boeing was hyping the company’s Starliner spacecraft program, a series of Op-Eds began showing up in newspapers nationwide attacking Space X and its allegedly unsafe fueling practices. The articles, which appeared everywhere from the Houston Chronicle to the Washington Times, all purported to simply be worried about astronaut safety. All were penned by Richard Hagar, who worked for NASA during the Apollo program, but now resides in Tennessee. All implied repeatedly that Space X was ignoring safety standards and putting astronauts at risk.

But amusingly, when Ars Technica tried to track down Hagar, they discovered that he didn’t actually write the vast majority of the Op-Eds published in countless news outlets nationwide under his name. Instead, the missives were penned by a PR and policy shop with an expertise in astroturf and other disingenuous messaging:

“To try to understand his viewpoint, Ars attempted to reach Hagar by phone and email in September. In the course of this process, we learned that he did not actually submit many of these op-eds.

In fact, based upon our research, at least four of the six op-eds that we located were submitted by two people with addresses. Their names were Josh Brevik and Casey Murray. Further research revealed that two people with these names worked as “associates” at a Washington, DC-based public relations firm named Law Media Group or LMG. We reached out to multiple editors at papers that ran the op-eds, and they confirmed that no LMG affiliation was disclosed to them. Attempts to reach Julian Epstein, the chief executive of LMG, by phone and email were unsuccessful.”

Boeing is an LMG client, and has worked previously for the company on past projects by “developing messaging” and crafting a “social media campaign amplifying our nationwide chorus of genuine American voices supporting Boeing.” Boeing is also Space X’s only competitor in the commercial crew program, so the mathematics here should be fairly obvious. Law Media Group (LMG) was busted for this exact sort of thing ten years ago and apparently absolutely nothing has changed, making it abundantly clear just how little most people care about this sort of disinformation.

News outlets have little incentive to crack down on this kind of disingenuous dreck, as they don’t want to anger the companies footing the bill. Most Americans are totally clueless about the perils on zero transparency in this regard, so public pressure to actually do something about it for many media outlets remains largely nonexistent. And while you could pass a law mandating that corporations are free to speak as long as they speak for themselves, countless corporations would certainly be quick to claim their ability to spread misleading nonsense via covert intermediaries violates their First Amendment rights.

Aside from applying continuous public pressure on news outlets to behave more transparently and ethically, it’s a problem that doesn’t seem to have an obvious solution.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: boeing, law media group, spacex

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Boeing Accused Of Covert, Coordinated Op-Ed Smear Campaign Against Space X”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Genuine' (unknowing) support

"To try to understand his viewpoint, Ars attempted to reach Hagar by phone and email in September. In the course of this process, we learned that he did not actually submit many of these op-eds.

Boeing is an LMG client, and has worked previously for the company on past projects by "developing messaging" and crafting a "social media campaign amplifying our nationwide chorus of genuine American voices supporting Boeing."

Submit op-eds that are attributed to someone who didn’t actually write them.

Claim to be focused on making more widely known the ‘genuine american voices’ supporting them.

One of those certainly isn’t true.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

WAY less than this if the rumors about Boeing’s internal embezzlement and overspending then hiding it from investors are true.

They NEED SpaceX to fail, so they can get enough cash to cover the GAPING MASSIVE holes in their finances that the accountants just can’t cover up anymore.

Investors are starting to push to get answers on why they aren’t receiving expected returns on their investments and Boeing is stonewalling.

Shit meet fan. Fan meet shit.

Zof (profile) says:

The most annoying thing

About all the fake news lately. And I don’t want any childish complaints or semantics arguments. This story is clearly discussing fake news being paid for by Boeing.

The most annoying thing about all this fake news is it’s painfully obvious. So you find yourself in a position where you lose all respect for the Media for being so incredibly bad at it. That’s why our orange president is still more trusted than our media. Consider that. That he has essentially double the trust rating of our media. That’s amazing to me.

Eric says:

Re: The most annoying thing

Well, it’s not really fake news that load and go could be dangerous. Fueling involves lots of moving bits and significant changes in temperature, weight, and pressure. An undiscovered design flaw in the carbon-wrapped pressure vessels allowed liquid oxygen to seep into the carbon fiber, and that eventually caused enough friction to ignite, destroying the rocket. SpaceX modified the design and loading afterwards, and that particular problem isn’t likely to blow up a rocket again. There could be other problems, but they haven’t been encountered yet.

But, is load & go more dangerous? With the Space Shuttle, you had over a half-million gallons of fuel and oxidizer strapped to over two million pounds of explosives, and had the crew getting into this carefully-prepared bomb with the assistance of a bunch of ground support people. They’d have almost no chance of surviving the stack blowing up. But, there’s not much fuel moving around and the stack is at a stable temperature when they arrive. We never did have a shuttle stack blow up after fueling but before liftoff, so the record is pretty good, despite the danger to the crews.
With load and go, the only people near the rocket when the fuel starts flowing are the crew, strapped into their capsule, equipped with escape rockets. Overlays indicate that Dragon’s escape system is capable of getting the crew away from an identical rocket failure. Theoretically, it’s safer, since the only people at risk also have solid escape system if something goes very wrong.

Basically, it boils down to “Would you rather get strapped in with a stable bomb under you and not have a realistic escape system, or get strapped into a good escape system and then have the bomb placed under you?”

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: The most annoying thing

[Citation needed]

The best figure I can find give trump’s approval rating a slight edge over trust in ‘mass media’. But that is certainly not trust in trump vs trust in the mass media. And certainly not double.

Moreover, some those who approve of trump have admitted they don’t trust him to tell the truth, and don’t care that he lies, so ‘Approval’ might actually imply that fewer people trust Trump.

Anonymous Coward says:

Kind of ironic Boeing is saying SpaceX is safe when internal
leaked documents estimate their own systems won’t be “safe to launch” (i.e. enter trials) until AT LEAST 2027.
But also say how NASA will fund them regardless, so they don’t give two shits how long it takes.

explosion after disaster after explosion, pretty much sums up Boeings entire strategy. That and fake-billing for development work and employees that don’t actually exist.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...